Attention is more predictive of targeted than broad math, but equally predictive of both reading measure types¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · associational r2–r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? An assessment type by subject interaction was significant, and attention was more predictive of targeted than broad math scores. → Gallen 2023 q3 i? For reading, attention was equally predictive of targeted and broad measures (non-significant interaction). → Gallen 2023 (2)

Evidence¶

Gallen 2023¶

Gallen, C. L., Schaerlaeken, S., Younger, J. W., Project iLEAD Consortium, Anguera, J. A., & Gazzaley, A. (2023). Contribution of sustained attention abilities to real-world academic skills in children. Scientific Reports 13, 2673. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29427-w

q3 · i? · associational · r3

Omnibus assessment type by subject interaction test across the four academic measures in the school-based sample, reported with F(1, 2426) = 4.71, p = 0.03; no standardized effect size is printed.

"there was an interaction between assessment type (targeted, broad) and subject (math, ELA/reading) on predicting attention (F(1, 2426) = 4.71, p = 0.03, R2 m (model) = 0.22, R2 c (model) = 0.24)"

Gallen 2023 (2)¶

Gallen, C. L., Schaerlaeken, S., Younger, J. W., Project iLEAD Consortium, Anguera, J. A., & Gazzaley, A. (2023). Contribution of sustained attention abilities to real-world academic skills in children. Scientific Reports 13, 2673. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29427-w

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Follow-up pairwise comparison for reading measures in the same sample: the attention by assessment-type interaction was non-significant, F(1, 1209) = 0.004, p = 0.94; equivalence was not formally tested and no effect size is printed.

"when comparing the two types of academic assessments for reading, we found that attention was equally predictive of both types of reading measures (F(1, 1209) = 0.004, p = 0.94, R2 m (model) = 0.19, R2 c (model) = 0.20)"

Gallen 2023 (3)¶

Gallen, C. L., Schaerlaeken, S., Younger, J. W., Project iLEAD Consortium, Anguera, J. A., & Gazzaley, A. (2023). Contribution of sustained attention abilities to real-world academic skills in children. Scientific Reports 13, 2673. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29427-w

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Follow-up pairwise comparison for math measures in the same sample: the attention by assessment-type interaction favored the targeted math test, F(1, 1207) = 11.29, p < 0.001; no standardized effect size is printed.

"attention was more predictive of tar-geted than broad math scores (F(1, 1207) = 11.29, p < 0.001, R2 m (model) = 0.28, R2 c (model) = 0.29; Fig. 2g, Table S3)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Attention — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Attention does not differentially predict broad math versus broad ELA scores — related
• Attention more strongly predicts targeted math than targeted reading at a trend level — related
• Sustained attention positively predicts broad statewide standardized test scores in math and ELA — related
• Sustained attention positively predicts math fluency assessed in group-based school settings — related
• Sustained attention positively predicts reading comprehension assessed in group-based school settings — related